All theory, read them, you will find no new genes created in any of them, merely variation through Copy Number Variation.
Do you understand what Copy Number Variation is?
It is not the creation of something new, but what already exists rearranged in a new sequence, with most of the changes due to deletion.
Origins and functional impact of copy number variation in the human genome
You have NO evidence any new genes have ever been formed, it only happens in your theory. Without which you have no basis to claim that all life originated from mutations, since mutation research clearly shows such is impossible.
How many times must it be repeated, before you admit to your Fairie Dust?
http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long...-Variation.pdf
"Additionally, the observation that
none of the different methods of mutagenesis − from delicate experiments looking for optimal mutation frequencies in plant breeding to the most massive mutation inductions − have ever changed the fact of selection limits (detected for all the plant and animal species so far investigated), is in agreement with the facts just mentioned as well as with the saturation curves shown above...
However, what has
never been achieved by accidental mutations,
is the creation of entirely new functional DNA-sequences constituting new genes and new gene reaction chains for novel synorganized anatomical structures and/or physiological functions. Thus, in accord with the laws of probability, examples and cases relativizing the law of recurrent variation have not been observed so far. In fact, also all the models and data recently advanced to solve the problem of completely new functional sequences and the origin of new organs and organ systems by random mutations
proved to be grossly insufficient upon close inspection and careful scientific examination...
As far as the critical authors are acquainted with plant breeding research and animal husbandry, they argue that the relatively
few positive mutation results have been mainly due to losses of undesirable features and functions, for example, lupines free of alkaloids, rapeseed without eruca acid, peas with extended tendrils instead of compound leaves etc. Yet, they emphasize the significant point that
such losses of function cannot explain the origin of all the genetic raw materials necessary for natural selection to generate the entire world of organisms...
Yet, perhaps one of the most astounding facts in the history of genetics appears to be the enormous gulf between the optimistic descriptions of mutants by so many authors active in plant breeding research during that period of time and the later "widely spread disappointment regarding mutation breeding due to the disconcerting reality, i.e. the meagre results obtained.
Confirming the observation of a rather strange distance between hypotheses and reality, Micke continues his assessment after his calculations quoted above (explaining the relatively few useful mutants achieved in mutation breeding) as follows: In contrast to such rare achievements there have been innumerable 'promising mutants' reported in innumerable publications,
which never seem to appear again on the stage after their first presentation. Nevertheless, there remains a respectable number of mutants which even the self-critical breeder or geneticist have seriously considered as progressive and of which only very few so far have contributed to the development of better crop cultivars. This experience has been disappointing to many, to those who worked with mutations and expected optimistically fast 'break-throughs' as also to those who watched the many mutation activities sceptically but nevertheless hoped that results would make the difficult task of plant breeders easier, at least in particular areas. "
The golf between your belief in hypothesis and actual reality is so large it can't be bridged, but you continue to ignore reality in favor of your hypothesis's, because that is what you want to believe and will continue to believe, despite the reality. You are in a state of denial, because you can't handle reality which disproved your religious dogma about mutations. They have never been a viable explanation for the origin of species, and never will be. You have no proof mutations are a viable process in evolution in the short term or long term, except in your hypothesis, and we already know the gap that exists between it and reality. You are left with no facts, just theory, theory that does not conform to reality, but wishful thinking.
Some are probably here just for a good scrap.
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
